From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jin-Rong Yu v. 2030 Embassy LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 21, 2011
83 A.D.3d 562 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 4869.

April 21, 2011.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered October 7, 2010, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants/third-party plaintiffs 2030 Embassy LLC and Carnegie Hill Management Corporation's motion for summary judgment on their claim for contractual indemnification against third-party defendant Taft Electric Company, Inc., and denied Taft's motion to compel a complete inspection of 2030 Embassy's computer system, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant 2030 Embassy and Carnegie Hill's motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Laurel A. Wedinger, New York, for appellants-respondents.

Milber Markris Plousadis Seiden, LLP, Woodbury (Lorin A. Donnelly of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Before: Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.


In support of their motion, 2030 Embassy and Carnegie Hill submitted, inter alia, a copy of a contract or estimate executed by 2030 Embassy and Taft that contains an indemnification provision and the transcript of the deposition testimony of Joseph Tuzzolo, Taft's president and owner. Tuzzolo testified unequivocally that, before plaintiffs accident, he signed a contract with 2030 Embassy for the subject electrical work that contained an indemnification provision. While Tuzzolo claimed not to have read the contract at the time of its execution, he did not explain his failure to read it and is bound by its terms ( see Collins v E-Magine, 291 AD2d 350, 351, lv denied 98 NY2d 605). In opposition to the motion, Tuzzolo submitted an affidavit claiming that the contract was actually executed after the accident. This affidavit is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact because it contradicts, and appears to have been tailored to avoid the consequences of, Tuzzolo's earlier testimony ( see Smith v Costco Wholesale Corp., 50 AD3d 499, 501; Telfeyan v City of New York, 40 AD3d 372).

The court properly declined to award Taft further postnote of issue discovery ( see 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]).

[Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 32783(U).]


Summaries of

Jin-Rong Yu v. 2030 Embassy LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 21, 2011
83 A.D.3d 562 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Jin-Rong Yu v. 2030 Embassy LLC

Case Details

Full title:JIN-RONG YU, Plaintiff, v. 2030 EMBASSY LLC et al., Defendants. 2030…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 21, 2011

Citations

83 A.D.3d 562 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 3188
922 N.Y.S.2d 31

Citing Cases

People v. N. Leasing Sys.

To be sure, lessees' admissions to signing contract documents without reading or understanding them or…

Penton Learning Sys., LLC v. Defense Strategies Inst. Grp.

Similarly, feigned issues are unavailing in attempting to resist summary judgment. See Glick & Dolleck v…